Any ideas what the Government is going to suggest?

[AlanFry1]

It is indeed!
There may be variations on that simple truth, such as Bond Issues, but they are just minor adjustments to the need to raise the money from the nation.

However, in the specific question of investment in Rail, then I guess there's often an unspoken condition to the question. That is "Could the Government shift more of its expenditure on road transport (or air) towards investment in the railways".
Its quite possible for the Treasury to increase one levy and decrease another and/or to spend the difference. Sadly, the most popularly proposed adjustments are to increase duty on aviation fuel and decrease investment in road enhancement. "Sadly", because these debates never seem to reach any viable alternative proposals.

What they could also do in introduce road charging and put the money into the railways

 

[Zoe]

What they could also do in introduce road charging and put the money into the railways

There are privacy issues with this though as you'd have to track every vehicle. That said there is a case for more city centre congestion charges, in London it has worked very well.

 

[amcluesent]

A super-peak fare could well be the catalyst, intended or not, of London's decline. As most worker travel in by train, the options are to seek higher wages to compensate, accept a lower standard of living or seek jobs elsewhere. The other option to live in London is ruled out as it's only possible if you are a 'seeker' on benefits or a multi-millionaire.

There's less and less reason for companies to be in London and problems with getting staff could trigger either a move abroad or a move outside the M25 (something the public sector has been doing for years, with varying success).

Just as super-tax triggered the brain drain from Britain, I expect super-premium fares will oblige folks to question the whole rationale travelling 5-days a week into London

 

[starrymarkb]

What they could also do in introduce road charging and put the money into the railways

It exists, it's called Fuel Duty - it's just that it goes into the Treasury where the government elects not to spend it on transport...

 

[jon0844]

Many people who use the railway also own a car, so hitting motorists (and the lorry/van drivers that carry goods or have the people you pay to do work for you) is not a great idea. Even eco warriors that walk, run and cycle everywhere will probably be hit by higher prices on goods.

If you don't bother to cut down on wastage, you might as well just increase income tax to cover the losses - rather than keep trying to find new ways to raise money indirectly. Didn't New Labour do very well with all of the stealth taxes to try and keep income tax at a fair level? At the end of the day, if you work out your incomings and outgoings over a year - did you pay more or less in tax, VAT and other indirect charges than before? That's all that really matters.

 

[Holly]

It's not about containing costs. The railway is ruinously expensive as compared with when it was nationalised and costs were very much lower.
Rather it is about making profits.

Demand management is the way to maximize profits. You eliminate cheap fare offerings when those offerings are used on heavily subscribed trains. Most obviously season tickets. Without season tickets being available revenues would go up and crowding would be eased.

No offered fare prices would have to be increased; one simply ceases to offer what is not profitable. It is a matter of profits, not costs, after all.

 

[northwichcat]

In some ways I am lucky being in the North are trains are old are infrastructure ancient so alot of this DOO garbage (IMHO) will not happen for 20+ years

I think having the driver open the doors is a great idea and am swaying to having them close them too and just have the guard doing ticket checks.

I think an intermediate approach between DOO and driver+guard is a solution.

On a lot of Northern services the train is delayed because the guard is not back to release the doors in time. Then if the guard returned sooner more often, there would be less delays but less tickets would be inspected. So having the driver operating the doors solves that problem.

There is also another problem that is resolved by this approach but care needs to be taken in it's implementation. The issue being Northern cancel services if a guard is unavailable. If the driver operates the doors then the train could run. However, I think maybe the following conditions need to be agreed to avoid upsetting the unions:
1. A train can run without a guard only should one not be available.
2. If possible doubled up units without corridor connectors should not run without a guard during a shortage. However, trains shouldn't be short formed if it's unavoidable.
3. There are no plans to cut back on the number of guards through redundancies.
4. Third parties like G4S shouldn't be employed to carry out on board ticket sales/inspections unless they are only used to fill in for a guard shortage.

As has been pointed out existing Northern stock is not suitable for driver releasing doors but that doesn't rule it out in the future.

 

[HSTEd]

1. A train can run without a guard only should one not be available.
2. If possible doubled up units without corridor connectors should not run without a guard during a shortage. However, trains shouldn't be short formed if it's unavoidable.
3. There are no plans to cut back on the number of guards through redundancies.
4. Third parties like G4S shouldn't be employed to carry out on board ticket sales/inspections unless they are only used to fill in for a guard shortage.

1. They will simply stop hiring additional guards
2. Define "unavoidable"
3. Natural wastage will do the job quite quickly I imagine.
4. Define "Guard Shortage" and see 1/3

People who assume that publically owned businesses are inefficient inherently tend to be the ones that believe that private sector businesses exist to provide a service.

They don't, they exist to make money, if they can do that while screwing the customer and its easier than doing the job properly they will.

 

[northwichcat]

Its like self checkouts at supermarkets. Probably in ten years time there will be 30 self service checkouts and 10 members of staff watching them.

You can have three people selling tickets at three windows or you can have one person supervising six self service machines. If someone gets stuck there is a person there to assist.

The way technology is going this is going to happen for sure be it sooner or later.

I've never had problems using a ticket machine at a station but using self-service checkouts I've had issues arising most times requiring a member of staff to come they range from:
* Age verification checks that a machine can't do, which apply to some medications not just alcohol, knives etc.
* Machine not accepting debit card.
* Coupons scanning fine but machine not recognising that they've been inserted in to the slot so not advancing to the next stage of the process.
* 'Unexpected item in bagging area.'

Like I've said ticket machines at stations haven't resulted in problems for me but if you start adding more functionality on to them so they can do more of what a person at the ticket office can I imagine they will.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

1. They will simply stop hiring additional guards

Yes but if there was an agreement between the employees/union and operator then no-one's job would be at risk.

2. Define "unavoidable"

Unavoidable meaning every available guard is on a service or taking a physical needs break. On occasions it might be that an available guard could do the next 142 working for Manchester - Marple and back but can't take the 150/1+156 combination for the next Manchester - Buxton service, either because the latter is longer or because they don't sign the Buxton line.

4. Define "Guard Shortage" and see 1/3

Like the above. There is no guard available who can take a service. This might be down to number of staff off ill or being delayed.

People who assume that publically owned businesses are inefficient inherently tend to be the ones that believe that private sector businesses exist to provide a service.

They don't, they exist to make money, if they can do that while screwing the customer and its easier than doing the job properly they will.

My post refers to Northern services. Implementing ticket barriers and machines at all stations is not really a viable option for all Northern* stations. Then you have to have someone manning the barriers otherwise there could be numerous issues. The most cost-effective options would involve maintaining ticket inspections on trains or having a higher number of ticket inspections on platforms.

* Northern could also easily read as ATW, FGW (non-mainline) or EMT (non-mainline)

 

[ukrob]

I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but I think any new stock for Northern should be DOO, but with the requirement of a second member of staff in the saloon in a purely customer service roll - back cab out of bounds in normal circumstances.

Before people start telling me that it is unworkable, I didn't say it was.

 

[Schnellzug]

A super-peak fare could well be the catalyst, intended or not, of London's decline. As most worker travel in by train, the options are to seek higher wages to compensate, accept a lower standard of living or seek jobs elsewhere. The other option to live in London is ruled out as it's only possible if you are a 'seeker' on benefits or a multi-millionaire.

There's less and less reason for companies to be in London and problems with getting staff could trigger either a move abroad or a move outside the M25 (something the public sector has been doing for years, with varying success).

Just as super-tax triggered the brain drain from Britain, I expect super-premium fares will oblige folks to question the whole rationale travelling 5-days a week into London

If only that would happen. Everyone seems to assume that it's absolutely crucial for London to endlessly expand as it's the Global Financial Powerhouse and all the other grandiose things they talk about, but really, it's just a huge and voracious monster soaking up all the money and all the job opportunities from the rest of the country. I'd be very happy to see a great deal of decentralisation. It's hardly as if it's really necessary for companies to be all in the same place, is it, or for everyone to have to work at the same times each day or the same days each week.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but I think any new stock for Northern should be DOO, but with the requirement of a second member of staff in the saloon in a purely customer service roll - back cab out of bounds in normal circumstances.

Before people start telling me that it is unworkable, I didn't say it was.

by doing that you put numerous people out of Jobs who are not just only excellent at what they do, but you then give license for the likes of G4S on the trains, do you really want that?

The government goes on about "costs" but does anyone actually give a damn about the human costs? I have a mortgage/wife/kids to feed, I took this mortgage on the basis of my wage, I lose that wage I lose my house, ticket costs will not go down and anyone who thinks that is living in gaga land, this McNumpty report will destroy so many lives, but people are too busy thinking how things like DOO will operate etc etc, prices will still rise and the only people who will benefit will be shareholders, Passengers won't, staff won't, savings need to be made maybe looking at some of the ridiculous costs regarding the likes of track maintenance (contract costs not staff costs) when say a firm charges £1,000000 when the true cost is £500,000 things like that but Staff are an easy target and I see my career, something that I am proud of and that I work damn hard at not only for the joy I get but to feed my family and give them a damn good shot at a good future go by the wayside...to give shareholders more money.


This is just my opinion and I don't expect many to agree with it but the human cost will be so much higher that many people on here realise.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

If only that would happen. Everyone seems to assume that it's absolutely crucial for London to endlessly expand as it's the Global Financial Powerhouse and all the other grandiose things they talk about, but really, it's just a huge and voracious monster soaking up all the money and all the job opportunities from the rest of the country. I'd be very happy to see a great deal of decentralisation. It's hardly as if it's really necessary for companies to be all in the same place, is it, or for everyone to have to work at the same times each day or the same days each week.

Nothing to do with the railways , but I wonder if the BBC might actually be doing something right with its recent decentralisation moves in favour of Salford, Glasgow and Cardiff bay. Seems to be working OK so far.
Maybe other industries could save costs by moving elsewhere (in the UK of course).

 

[notadriver]

I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but I think any new stock for Northern should be DOO, but with the requirement of a second member of staff in the saloon in a purely customer service roll - back cab out of bounds in normal circumstances.

Before people start telling me that it is unworkable, I didn't say it was.

Just out of curiosity, how would you enforce the back cab ban?

 

[Holly]

duplicate

 

[northwichcat]

I have a mortgage/wife/kids to feed, I took this mortgage on the basis of my wage, I lose that wage I lose my house

Anyone taking out a mortgage knows that they may lose their job before the mortgage is paid off and that their salary might increase at a smaller rate than the interest on their mortgage increases.

Like you've said yourself if Northern Rail guards were cut back that could well mean a number of third party ticket inspection employees could go up, so the guards would be able to apply for those 'new' jobs. The problem will be that the redundant guards would have to accept lower salaries if they wanted the new roles.

ticket costs will not go down and anyone who thinks that is living in gaga land

That has never been the aim. The aim is to cut the amount fares increase by. When commuter's salaries are increasing at a much lower level than inflation, having fares which increase by above the rate of inflation is something that can't continue unless the aim is for passenger numbers to fall and if passenger numbers fall then that means less services and less crews required.

Hopefully there will be some inconsistencies ironed out which will see fares on a small number of routes drop slightly but overall the majority of passengers aren't expecting to see whole scale fare cuts.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Anyone taking out a mortgage knows that they may lose their job before the mortgage is paid off and that their salary might increase at a smaller rate than the interest on their mortgage increases.

Like you've said yourself if Northern Rail guards were cut back that could well mean a number of third party ticket inspection employees could go up, so the guards would be able to apply for those 'new' jobs. The problem will be that the redundant guards would have to accept lower salaries if they wanted the new roles.



That has never been the aim. The aim is to cut the amount fares increase by. When commuter's salaries are increasing at a much lower level than inflation, having fares which increase by above the rate of inflation is something that can't continue unless the aim is for passenger numbers to fall and if passenger numbers fall then that means less services and less crews required.

Hopefully there will be some inconsistencies ironed out which will see fares on a small number of routes drop slightly but overall the majority of passengers aren't expecting to see whole scale fare cuts.

prices will still go up at the same rates the only people who befit will be shareholders, let me ask you this who would you rather have helping you if an accident occured (Driver incapacitated)

someone who knows the route, traction,emergency procedures

or

a minimum wage, minimum training CSA (a la G4S)


thats what will happen and if people want that fine


see you in the morgue

 

[ukrob]

That is just being melodramatic.

DOO works perfectly safely in many areas of the country.

Where have you got this idea about G4S working trains from anyhow?

 

[Wath Yard]

People who assume that publically owned businesses are inefficient inherently tend to be the ones that believe that private sector businesses exist to provide a service.

They don't, they exist to make money, if they can do that while screwing the customer and its easier than doing the job properly they will.

There is one thing the private sector is very, very good at, and that is increasing efficiency and reducing costs. Unfortunately the railways aren't really private sector, they are some strange mishmash of private and public sector taking the worst aspects of both, and therefore the private sector companies involved have no incentive to reduce costs, as they know the DfT will pick up the bill.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

That is just being melodramatic.

DOO works perfectly safely in many areas of the country.

Where have you got this idea about G4S working trains from anyhow?

A few areas of the country where millions upon millions have been spent on the infrastructure, and think about it with guards gone, outsourcing becomes king, poorly trained staff only knowing the minimum basic to get along, before Bariier staff were "outsourced" they were trained knowledgeable people who could do their job efficiently and properly, now you get the likes of G4S, with constant complaints very poor attitude but G4S win because they are "cheaper", thats the way all this is going, shareholders will be rubbing their hands with glee, and the people who will pay will be existing staff and passengers, staff short term as we will be out of a job but Passengers for the long term, enjoy your future on our railways because not many people will

 

[WelshBluebird]

There is one thing the private sector is very, very good at, and that is increasing efficiency and reducing costs.

You need to add something onto that statement. That the private sector often will increase efficiency and reduce costs no matter what the consequences. If the cost cutting results in greater profits, then tough if that means a worse service.

 

[LE Greys]

You need to add something onto that statement. That the private sector often will increase efficiency and reduce costs no matter what the consequences. If the cost cutting results in greater profits, then tough if that means a worse service.

I reckon its deeper than that. Companies do mostly what their customers want, since that's what sells goods. We are currently a low-price culture, always looking for the best deal (well, not me). Companies know that, so they compete on price rather than quality.

 

[notadriver]

A few areas of the country where millions upon millions have been spent on the infrastructure, and think about it with guards gone, outsourcing becomes king, poorly trained staff only knowing the minimum basic to get along, before Bariier staff were "outsourced" they were trained knowledgeable people who could do their job efficiently and properly, now you get the likes of G4S, with constant complaints very poor attitude but G4S win because they are "cheaper", thats the way all this is going, shareholders will be rubbing their hands with glee, and the people who will pay will be existing staff and passengers, staff short term as we will be out of a job but Passengers for the long term, enjoy your future on our railways because not many people will

This hadn't happened on the HS1 services run with class 395s. All trains have an on board manager and are run as DOO. Their basic salary is more than a guards but they don't get commission. The disadvantages are that they are banned from the back cabs and there isn't a 'guards office' as such.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

This hadn't happened on the HS1 services run with class 395s. All trains have an on board manager and are run as DOO. Their basic salary is more than a guards but they don't get commission. The disadvantages are that they are banned from the back cabs and there isn't a 'guards office' as such.

But can you really see that happening on a 142?

 

[Schnellzug]

You need to add something onto that statement. That the private sector often will increase efficiency and reduce costs no matter what the consequences. If the cost cutting results in greater profits, then tough if that means a worse service.

The trouble is that "efficiency" usually means just cutting costs; it certainly doesn't mean "providing a better service".

 

[ukrob]

But can you really see that happening on a 142?

No, but nobody suggested it should happen on any existing Northern stock.

You got too wound up about paying your mortgage and minimum wage security staff that you didn't read what was actually written .

HS1 is a prime example of what I suggested.

 

[Wath Yard]

The trouble is that "efficiency" usually means just cutting costs; it certainly doesn't mean "providing a better service".

No, eficiency means what it says. Getting more for less. Efficiency has nothing at all to do with customer service or providing a better service, but on the other hand neither does inefficiency.

 

[Schnellzug]

No, eficiency means what it says. Getting more for less. Efficiency has nothing at all to do with customer service or providing a better service, but on the other hand neither does inefficiency.

Wasn't that what I said?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

No, but nobody suggested it should happen on any existing Northern stock.

You got too wound up about paying your mortgage and minimum wage security staff that you didn't read what was actually written .

HS1 is a prime example of what I suggested.

If I am emotive so be it, how many times on this forum have we seen get rid of the guard, dont need a guard etc etc, but as usual when people are not directly affected (understandably) they just think of £ and not the true cost which in human terms is far greater, This McNumpty report has everyone except Drivers worried and with good reason, I fear the future of myself and thousands of colleagues and that I will not apologize for.

 

[Wath Yard]

Wasn't that what I said?

Maybe I misread what looked like the the implied meaning that making things more efficient necessarily reduces quality. It can but then again it might not, and this thread is to do with cost, not service quality.